• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How many times can you take credit for the same 500,000 jobs?

Yawn. BHO selling the Brooklyn Bridge over and over and over. A "real jobs program" would be a growing economy.:mrgreen:
Um, news flash, the economy is growing.

The point that you keep avoiding is that your President was not inaccurate but your choice of source was.
 
Participation=number of employed/number of workers, "shedding of jobs" is related the total number of jobs, two different measures, one is only a component of the other and one can have an increasing number of workers without job increases, ie no "shedding".

This is why it is funny for one to talk about raising the level....when they think a declining participation rate equals "shedding".

Im wondering how you think we can have people leaving the workforce in the millions and think we have job creation. If those people are leaving the workforce we should have a lot of job openings. We dont.

I didn't say anything of the sort, you are putting words into my mouth, I simply showed that you "want to raise the level" when in your own premise there is a glaring error.

You then compound your silliness by putting words in my mouth and create a straw man. If this is your version of "raising the level", I think you ought to re-evaluate your goal and method.

What you said is we can have lowered participation and still have job growth. Correct? Once I get a reply, Ill respond.
 
Um, news flash, the economy is growing.

The point that you keep avoiding is that your President was not inaccurate but your choice of source was.

Its growing more slowly than it has for any economic recovery. Its also growing with little to no job growth after job losses in the millions. Previous economic conditions indicate that doing NOTHING would have resulted in better job growth than what is being done now.
 
I dont think anyone in this administration knows how to tell the truth.

Nor do I think anyone in big financial knows how to tell the truth.

All of them keep saying how great the economy is doing,
but here in flyover country its barely staying above water!!

When you haven't done anything for five years it's tough to get passed a two minute speech. I mean he probably created more jobs in Africa on his latest vacation than he did here in the past year.
 
What you said is we can have lowered participation and still have job growth. Correct? Once I get a reply, Ill respond.
Bzzzzz....No, that is not what I said, and this is ANOTHER example of your NOT "raising the level".
 
Bzzzzz....No, that is not what I said, and this is ANOTHER example of your NOT "raising the level".

Yeah its what I thought. You would rather snark and lie than communicate. One more try, explain exactly what you meant by your apparently contradictory statements.

Explain how we can have both lowered participation and increasing job growth. Because we have lowered participation level and you want to say we have increasing job growth. So whether you believe you said it or not---you DID.
 
Its growing more slowly than it has for any economic recovery.
Of course it is, when you have very small recovery efforts for an economy of this size, when you don't focus on the core issues, when you have a Congress divided where half are focused on the ruin of President and not on being a functioning body in the midst of the worst economic downturn since 1929.....surprise!...you will have a slow recovery. Oh, did I mention the world wide depressed demand contributing to lowered exports? Yeah, I did.


Its also growing with little to no job growth after job losses in the millions. Previous economic conditions indicate that doing NOTHING would have resulted in better job growth than what is being done now.
LOL.....um, I think that is the point, we are doing next to nothing on the fed level while at the state level we have had worse than nothing, ie austerity.
 
Yeah its what I thought. You would rather snark and lie than communicate. One more try, explain exactly what you meant by your apparently contradictory statements.
If you expect a "raising of the level", hint, it is a 2 way street. YOU have to be able to read this raised level coming at you, comprehend it, and show this comprehension in your responses. Either you are not reading well or not comprehending, but I am not here to hold your hand while you struggle. You want a higher level, but you can't handle it.

Explain how we can have both lowered participation and increasing job growth.
Why would I explain a situation of your creation? Again, I did not say that.


Because we have lowered participation level and you want to say we have increasing job growth. So whether you believe you said it or not---you DID.
No, what I did was to show that the 2 things you thought were in or could be in an equivalence.....is not necessarily so. You are still confused about the point I made......after 2 pages!

Are you sure you want to continue with your "raising", because I see little effort on your part.
 
The Fact Checker

Obama's claim never changes. What does that tell us?

The good news is, today, our businesses have created nearly 7 million new jobs over the past 38 months. Five hundred thousand of those jobs are in manufacturing.”

— President Obama, remarks on college affordability, May 31, 2013

During a speech calling on Congress to halt a hike in the student loan rate, President Obama referenced the creation of 500,000 manufacturing jobs since February 2010 as part of the opening sentence in a paragraph touting good news about the economy (“The housing market is coming back. The stock market has rebounded.”).

But there was something about that phrase that sounded familiar.

Here’s the president speaking to the Democratic National Convention on Sept. 6 (nine months ago):

“After a decade of decline, this country created over half a million manufacturing jobs in the last two and a half years.”

And here’s the president at the State of the Union address on Feb. 12 (four months ago):

“After shedding jobs for more than 10 years, our manufacturers have added about 500,000 jobs over the past three.”

It’s pretty rare to hear the same talking point regarding a job statistic, month after month. What’s going on here?

The Pinocchio Test

While the president has long preferred to point to the gain in jobs since early 2010 — the low point in employment during his presidency — the fact remains that manufacturing employment remains about 600,000 jobs smaller than when he took office. That stands in stark contrast to overall nonfarm employment — which is 2 million jobs larger.

Moreover, the growth in manufacturing jobs has basically stalled over the past year. The president’s continued use of this 500,000-job statistic, even as other job stats keep improving, suggests the news is not as good as advertised. Without some presidential acknowledgment that manufacturing job growth has slowed in the past year, it might be time to retire this talking point.

Two Pinocchios:confused:

I cant tell which part youre quoting and which is your original content.
 
LOL.....um, I think that is the point, we are doing next to nothing on the fed level while at the state level we have had worse than nothing, ie austerity.

Doing nothing is now austerity?

So anything short for spending a record deficit, which actually wasn't enough according to liberals, is Austerity. Got it.
 
Doing nothing is now austerity?
It could be, but that is not what I said. You people just refuse to read what is right in front of you.

So anything short for spending a record deficit, which actually wasn't enough according to liberals, is Austerity. Got it.
I see you still have trouble with what a deficit is (Hint:it has two components and your inability to come to terms with how a govt effects a recovery makes this whole exercise pointless) and you still did not understand my point, you decided instead to put words in my mouth and go off on your tangent.......but this IS what you do, so no surprise.....and again it is a reminder of the futility of conversing with you. You take the easy way out, you purposely avoid the point made, you instead create a straw man and then slay it with a tangent.
 
Going backwards is preferable to diving forward off the cliff.
Your life is all about false premises. You see, if we went backwards to Bush era practices, we would probably have another "going off the cliff", ie big bubble pops.

Your false premise is that we have never had a world-wide bubble and banking collapse before, therefore we are blindly going forward. But that isn't the case.......but again... my typing this to you is pure futility.
 
Your life is all about false premises. You see, if we went backwards to Bush era practices, we would probably have another "going off the cliff", ie big bubble pops.

How can you go back to something that has never been changed in the first place?

Please list the sweeping changes in policy that Obama has implemented.
 
If you expect a "raising of the level", hint, it is a 2 way street. YOU have to be able to read this raised level coming at you, comprehend it, and show this comprehension in your responses. Either you are not reading well or not comprehending, but I am not here to hold your hand while you struggle. You want a higher level, but you can't handle it.

Why would I explain a situation of your creation? Again, I did not say that.


No, what I did was to show that the 2 things you thought were in or could be in an equivalence.....is not necessarily so. You are still confused about the point I made......after 2 pages!

Are you sure you want to continue with your "raising", because I see little effort on your part.

Like I thought. You want to claim something that exists in a vacuum, irregardless of other job factors.

They are not equivalent, they do however, affect one another.

How about you try to explain your claim without the snide stupidity. It would be a welcome change.
 
Like I thought. You want to claim something that exists in a vacuum, irregardless of other job factors.
Oh FFS, what am I "claiming exists in a vacuum"?

They are not equivalent, they do however, affect one another.
But you DID make them (PR/"shedding") equivalent when you said:
"We are still shedding jobs so long as the participation rate continues to decline."

If you wish to now backtrack....all I can say is that it is about time. Sheesh.

How about you try to explain your claim without the snide stupidity. It would be a welcome change.
What frigging claim? Again, YOU ARE NOT RAISING THE BAR, YOU ARE POSTING LAZY CRAP.
 
Um, probably because as even the article (which you could not link to) points out, the claim is correct. Since February of 2010 when the President's budget and policies began in earnest, manufacturing employment began a rebound:

"Then manufacturing jobs began to rebound, thanks in part to the rescue of the auto industry. By July 2012, the number of manufacturing jobs had risen to 11.957 million, or just shy of a 500,000-job gain."

So what the President said was completely factually accurate, and Kessler agrees it is accurate, but still says it is a lie? I know you neocons are still in denial about the job losses during W, and won't accept the fact that the losses that continued in the first year of Obama (1.1M manufacturing job losses) should be attributed to W...but to deny the gains since is just ODS.

Further.....please.....don't any of you say a GD thing about the tapering off of more manufacturing hiring. The Grand Old Perv's in Congress have blocked any and all attempts to introduce real jobs programs, going so far as to whip on W's manufacturing incentives.


You guys have nothing to stand on as usual.

PS.....this is a link:

Obama?s jobs statistic is overworked - Washington Post

Oh FFS, what am I "claiming exists in a vacuum"?

But you DID make them (PR/"shedding") equivalent when you said:
"We are still shedding jobs so long as the participation rate continues to decline."

If you wish to now backtrack....all I can say is that it is about time. Sheesh.

What frigging claim? Again, YOU ARE NOT RAISING THE BAR, YOU ARE POSTING LAZY CRAP.

You are agreeing with the job growth claim of the administration while ignoring a falling job particpation rate---meaning fewer jobs available for those that wanted them.

Further the orignal claim is that Obama's admin has claimed the same job growth over and over again. Especially in light of a smaller work force---meaning the jobs being "created" may well just be jobs being left behind or consolidated.
 
....demand.

LOL !!

Now I'm begining to understand your affliction.

" Demand " is a symptom, up or down, and consumers can " want " till the cows come home it makes no difference.

The real engine of the economy responds favorably to incentives, low taxes, thr removal of draconian regulations and it responds poorly to High taxes, mandated expenses and more regulations.

If you supposedly know what your talking about why do you support a President who's so incompetent he had to let out the job of improving the economy to his Fed Chairman ?

Lowering unemployment was never the job of the Fed before.

Why do you support a President who's entire economy is propped up with 4 trillion in QE ?
 
You are agreeing with the job growth claim of the administration while ignoring a falling job particpation rate---meaning fewer jobs available for those that wanted them.
You are conflating 2 different points. The first is that the President is correct in saying that since 2010 manufacturing jobs have increased by 500K.

The second point is still you stating an incorrect correlation, lowered participation is not ALWAYS defined by fewer jobs....since participation includes 2 variables. This is the SAME ERROR you are continuing.

Further the orignal claim is that Obama's admin has claimed the same job growth over and over again.
How is restating a truth...wrong?



Especially in light of a smaller work force
When did the workforce decline? FFS! another rabbit hole!



---meaning the jobs being "created" may well just be jobs being left behind or consolidated.
"Jobs" refer to new hires. GAWD!!!!!
 
LOL !!

Now I'm begining to understand your affliction.

" Demand " is a symptom, up or down, and consumers can " want " till the cows come home it makes no difference.

The real engine of the economy responds favorably to incentives, low taxes, thr removal of draconian regulations and it responds poorly to High taxes, mandated expenses and more regulations.
Supply-side BS. The economy is not a "build it and they will come" fantasy.

If you supposedly know what your talking about why do you support a President who's so incompetent he had to let out the job of improving the economy to his Fed Chairman ?

Lowering unemployment was never the job of the Fed before.

Why do you support a President who's entire economy is propped up with 4 trillion in QE ?
If you think the attempts at reviving the economy was limited to monetary policy/efforts, you just have no business commenting here.
 
Apparently not TOO bad...


Europe indicates it's sticking with austerity. But is that working? - CSMonitor.com

or at least not bad enough for them to change direction...

Nothing like an old article to not make a point. The EU has recognized the utter failure of austerity. The only people who haven't are desperate delusional American conservatives.

Europe rethinks austerity - Los Angeles Times

But decide for yourself. US followed stimulus and its recession ended in two quarters and there has been growth ever since. The EU has seen double dip recessions in various member states, and has seen GOP decline in many country for 5 or 6 quarters.

Let's see: which policy worked? Boy that's hard to figure out. For a tea partier.
 
How can you go back to something that has never been changed in the first place?

Please list the sweeping changes in policy that Obama has implemented.

Jiminy Cricket.

Stimulus. AHCA. Dodd Frank. Ending Bush's vanity wars. Raising taxes on the top bracket.
 
LOL.....um, I think that is the point, we are doing next to nothing on the fed level while at the state level we have had worse than nothing, ie austerity.

Jiminy Cricket.

Stimulus. AHCA. Dodd Frank. Ending Bush's vanity wars. Raising taxes on the top bracket.

Maybe they should compare notes and see what narrative they want to push.
 
Maybe they should compare notes and see what narrative they want to push.

I know tea partiers can't think for themselves, so they find it odd that other people do. Get used to it.
 
Back
Top Bottom